So why is Polygamy Illegal?

[Bandito]

Because the Judicial system is based on the Christian religion. And in Christianity you can't get married with multiple women.

[boozehound]

Because the Judicial system is based on the Christian religion. And in Christianity you can't get married with multiple women.

A) not really. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...ded-on-christ/
B) Old testament.

[Balla_Status]

Polygamy should definitely be legalized. Plus, can one woman provide everything that a man wants in life and vice versa?

[Real Men Wear Green]

To answer the question: It's one of a number of laws based on older Christian morals that younger generations that aren't so puritanical are or will eventually question.

[DCL]

well, polygamy would fukk up all the divorce settlement laws in america. if a man had 3 wives and all of them divorced him at the same time, would he be left with half his shit when it's all said and done? no, he wouldn't be so lucky because each bitch would split the pie and take a quarter, so he'd be left with, at best, only 25%. the illegality of polygamy protects the man financially from losing all his assets and shit if he got no pre-nup. now imagine a dude with 9 wives. if they all divorced his ass simultaneously and divided all his shit evenly, he'd be flushed out and be left with only 10%. but sticking to the traditonal two person marrigae rule, the man wouldn't have as much to lose.

[HarryCallahan]

It shouldn't be. Marriage is the business of those who are in it, not some busybody in the Capital.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I'm against just because the divorce cases would be nightmares.

Divorce cases are already nightmares.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Well, the general criminalization of adultery has been greatly reduced over recent generations, so honestly what does it even matter if polygamy is legal or illegal?

Back in the old school days of marriage, polygamy was a clever way to get around only being able to legally have sex with one woman. If you wanted to screw another hen, you could do it but you gotta make sure you add her to your wife roster. Nowadays we have web applications that are advertised on billboards that enable you to have extra marital affairs. It's just a markedly different world today from the one depicted in Wood's iconic 'American Gothic' painting.

Orthodoxy had its reasons and its necessities back in pre-industrial times. Women were publicly shamed with scarlet letters as a deterrent for having illegitimate children because back then there was no all-protective federal government to make sure everyone had food stamps if they wanted them. People lived in farming villages where food could be in very limited supply. The balance of mouths to feed and food production was very delicate. Children had to be raised by the families that conceived them because nobody else had the means or time to take care of someone else's kid. Life was obviously not a picnic back then. You couldn't just sit back and collect unemployment to pay for that new neck tattoo. Of course, nowadays clowns like rmwg and kevinnyc and orange&blue actually believe if you aren't a millionaire you are actually ENTITLED to collect dat welfare to get that new neck tattoo while someone else goes to work to make their money.

It's dat new evolution.

[riseagainst]

it's illegal for moral purposes. Having multiple "wives" defeats the purpose of marriage.

[OldSkoolball#52]

it's illegal for moral purposes. Having multiple "wives" defeats the purpose of marriage.

No it doesn't.

The historical purpose of marriage is a contract to regulate sexual/economic needs. The man is guaranteed a sexual partner, the woman is guaranteed to be provided for.

You can still do that with multiple wives. If the man wants multiple partners, he just has to be able to provide for multiple women.




.... Or did you think marriage originated with Cupid going around shooting arrows at people who then turned puppy-dog-eyed and skipped off to feed grapes to each other on a blanket in the meadow?

[boozehound]

it's illegal for moral purposes. Having multiple "wives" defeats the purpose of marriage.

This is ridiculous. Polygyny is enhances the purpose of marriage (i.e. the creation of a stable household for the production of children) by allowing one man more access to an ovulating female. From a behavioral ecology standpoint, polygyny is the most successful of marriages. and, its also in the bible.

[riseagainst]

This is ridiculous. Polygyny is enhances the purpose of marriage (i.e. the creation of a stable household for the production of children) by allowing one man more access to an ovulating female. From a behavioral ecology standpoint, polygyny is the most successful of marriages. and, its also in the bible.

I might have agreed with you until I saw the bolded.

[DukeDelonte13]

1. Benefits
2. Citizenship
3. Spousal testimonial privileges
4. Tax breaks
5. custody issues
6. estate issues
7. divorce/dissolution issues


just off the top of my head. Marriage in the united states is shaped by law not by religion. Sure you get right wing kooks yammering about the "sanctity of marriage" and now we have some lawmakers that are ultra right wing religious zealots but american politics weren't always like that.

[InfiniteBaskets]

No it doesn't.

The historical purpose of marriage is a contract to regulate sexual/economic needs. The man is guaranteed a sexual partner, the woman is guaranteed to be provided for.

You can still do that with multiple wives. If the man wants multiple partners, he just has to be able to provide for multiple women.

In this day and age, does a man who's in the position to provide for several other women + I'd imagine at least 3+ children really need to get married in order to guarantee a sexual partner?

Plus, what about when his wife gets old? Just gonna keep shelling out money for new wives and kids? That sounds like an awful lot of work compared to dating. You could order bottle service every night in vegas, or you could end up paying for 10 kids worth of college, feed 10 mouths, plus clothes, plus vacations... It would just be ridiculous.

[OldSkoolball#52]

In this day and age, does a man who's in the position to provide for several other women + I'd imagine at least 3+ children really need to get married in order to guarantee a sexual partner?

Plus, what about when his wife gets old? Just gonna keep shelling out money for new wives and kids? That sounds like an awful lot of work compared to dating. You could order bottle service every night in vegas, or you could end up paying for 10 kids worth of college, feed 10 mouths, plus clothes, plus vacations... It would just be ridiculous.

Definitely not. In this day and age a man has greatly reduced incentive to marry even jus one woman, relative to generations passed. I wasnt suggestig anything to the contrary.


Thats why I used to argue against same sex marriage, not from a prejudice or religious perspective, simply because it seemed kind of silly relative to the actual historical purpose of marriage. Frankly it still does but to me its just not a battle worth fighting. If gay people feel that strongly about wanting it, theres really not much harm in it I suppose. So its whatever.